Lacomus

I’ve been thinking about a tournament structure built around a simple idea: You don’t have to play to take part, you can own a piece of a player through staking. The Core Idea (simple). Players can enter: On their own, or backed by others. Backers (friends, guild members, or anyone) can contribute pokedollars to a player and receive a percentage share of that player’s results. If the player wins or places, you get your %. If they don’t, your stake is lost. How Staking Works (examples). Ownership is based on how much you contribute relative to the total buy in. The examples below use a simple proportional model for clarity. Example: 1m Buy In 100k stake - 10% ownership 250k stake - 25% ownership 500k stake - 50% ownership 1m stake - 100% ownership (self funded) Example: 5m Buy In 100k stake - 2% ownership 500k stake - 10% ownership 1m stake - 20% ownership 5m stake - 100% ownership (self funded) Example: 10m Buy In 100k stake - 1% ownership 1m stake - 10% ownership 2.5m stake - 25% ownership 10m stake - 100% ownership (self funded) Note: These percentages are shown as a baseline model to keep things simple and easy to understand. In practice, final terms can be negotiated between the player and their backers depending on the situation. For example, a highly skilled player being backed into a tournament may agree on a slightly different percentage split. All that matters is that: The agreed ownership is clear upfront, terms are locked in before the tournament starts, payouts follow those agreed percentages. This keeps the system flexible, while still remaining fair and transparent for everyone involved. What This Allows. For players: They don’t need to fund everything themselves, they can be backed by a guild or community, strong players can compete at higher levels. For backers: You can participate without playing, you can choose who to back, you can own a piece of the action. Strategy Side. You decide how you want to approach it: Back one strong player for a bigger share, split across 2 to 3 players for balance, guilds can back multiple players and increase their chances overall. It becomes both: a competition for players, and an investment decision for backers. Following the Action. For those backing players, part of the appeal is the experience itself. You can follow your players live on Showdown (or on PRO, one day, if its possible), track their progress, and feel directly involved in every moment. Instead of just watching, you’re personally invested in the outcome, which adds an extra layer of excitement and engagement throughout the tournament. Fair Play and Integrity. Well...the big one. At the end of the day, this format is about individual competition with shared backing on the outside. Backing strong players and earning a share of their results is completely fine...that’s the whole point of the system. It’s meant to be simple: Support a player you believe in, and share in their success. Of course, with any competition, it’s impossible to control every edge case perfectly. The goal here isn’t to overcomplicate things, but to keep the environment fair, transparent, and competitive. So the expectations are straightforward: Players compete independently, backing stays outside the game, and everyone plays to win on their own merit. If anything questionable does arise, it can be reviewed and handled appropriately, but the intention is to rely on good faith and clear structure, not heavy restrictions. Bottom Line. Everyone agrees on stakes and % ownership before the tournament starts. Those percentages are locked in. Whatever a player wins gets split based on that, no confusion that’s it. What this is really about...this idea is just about making big tournaments more doable and more interesting for everyone. Players don’t have to carry everything on their own. People can get involved even if they’re not playing. Friends and guilds can back their strongest players, and everyone has a reason to follow the action. At the end of the day, it’s just: Back a player you believe in, and enjoy the ride. Simple, fair, and hopefully more exciting for everyone involved. Happy to hear any thoughts, feedback, or pushback as well...whether you like the idea or not, all input is useful.

Insta.

I get why it’s frustrating. Terms like “epic” or “godly” are very subjective and mean different things to different players. For serious PvP players, those labels usually imply good or great stats...20+ or 25+ in key areas with proper stat distribution, with 31 Speed usually. Others tend to focus only on the headline numbers, so something that is a full 20+ might get called “epic” even if the overall spread isn’t great. Personally, I don’t really agree with that (every 20+ being epic...nah). At the end of the day, these words are more like marketing terms than anything else. I try to use them carefully. Only when something is genuinely strong rather than just average. If it’s average or below average, I won’t label it as "epic". The problem is that without any official guideline defining what these terms actually mean, everyone ends up using their own standards. I’ve written my own guideline(s) in the “Listings” section of my signature, but that’s just my perspective (it’s not necessarily the correct one). It also gets tricky in borderline cases. For example, if something meets most expectations but falls just short having 19 DEF/18 DEF instead of 20+ with 31 Speed, and the rest of it is really good on "X" Pokémon to bring it to that epic standard, does that disqualify it? These would fall into borderline cases that are likely to frustrate people and create extra work for moderators, especially when the difference comes down to just one or two IV points missing the guideline. At that level of detail, it can start to feel really petty and not really worth the added complexity. Situations like that can quickly become messy, and trying to strictly define everything probably isn’t worth the hassle overall. Still, I completely understand why it bothers people.

6m

5m

4m

3m

1.7m

1.1m

800k

Bump

@Keithmoreno There are plenty of ways to earn and progress. Complete Officer Jenny quests, trade with other players, sell valuable Pokémon you’ve hunted, offer useful services to the community, and more. If you’re on the Silver Server, I’m happy to give you a boost in Vermillion. Just tag me on the PRO Discord (Lacomus).

Arcanine 600k

Start Arcanine 200k

The auction is now closed. @Fafouney has won.

Bump

Bump

The auction is now closed. @Deita has won.

I get what you’re saying, and the idea makes sense on paper…but the core issue is this: People play PRO because it’s Pokémon. It’s not just the battle system or MMO design. The attachment to the creatures, the history, the recognition. If you strip that away and replace it with new monsters, even if the gameplay is identical, a lot of players just won’t feel the same pull. The emotional connection is doing a lot of the work. Recreating from scratch isn’t easy. It’s not just making new monsters, it’s building something people care about in the same way. On the PvP side, you’re right. Some may find the ban list frustrating, but also necessary. As for making a new IP…technically possible, but risky. You’d lose the built in audience that comes from Pokémon. Even good alternatives struggle with that. Your idea isn’t wrong though…it just works better as inspiration. Instead of copying Pokémon, the real opportunity would be making something new that captures what works, but stands on its own.

Bump

Bump

Bump

@T1nkat0n Just to confirm, is it Silver or Gold?